Lee J. Johnston presented on approaches to reduce the carbon footprint of pork production. Monitoring energy use on farms showed that reducing room temperatures at night in nurseries by 15°F lowered heating fuel use by 29% and electricity by 19%, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 15.5 pounds per pig. Installing solar panels on barn roofs and using heat pumps or chillers with cooled water for sows could further reduce fossil fuel use. Conducting life cycle assessments provides a comprehensive view of environmental impacts to identify production methods with lower carbon footprints. Consumer demand for sustainability will likely drive further adoption of efficiency practices.

1. Lee J. Johnston, Professor
University of Minnesota
West Central Research and Outreach Ctr., Morris
MN Pork Congress
January 18, 2017
Minneapolis, MN

3.  Consumer supply chains are asking for
reduced environmental impacts
 Modern production agriculture uses
significant fossil fuel resources
• Fertilizer, crop protection products, diesel,
electricity, heating fuels
 Is there a way to reduce the use of these
fuels without compromising or maybe
improving production?

4.  Currently, three pronged
• Dairy production
• Crops production
• Swine production
 Upcoming aspects
• Algae production
• Horticulture?

5. Approaches to reduce carbon footprint of pork
 Monitor fossil-based energy use on farms
 Conservation practices
 Renewable energy generation
 Enhanced pig performance with RE?
 Estimate LCA of production systems

6.  Monitoring monthly electrical use of
representative loads within each barn
 Recording electrical use in each barn
 Monitoring use of heating fuels in each barn
 Recording pig production from each barn

8. Breed to Wean Barns
 Breed to wean barn #2
• Gestation barn unit is
curtain sided
• Farrowing rooms are
power ventilated
 Electrical usage
• Uses 54,880 kWh/month on
ave.
• About 2,500 sows
• 57,965 weaned pigs per year
• 11.4 kWh per weaned pig
 Breed to wean barn #6
• Gestation barn is cross-
ventilated
• Farrowing rooms are
power ventilated
 Electrical usage
• Uses 87,100 kWh/month on
ave.
• 3,300 sows
• 85,874 weaned pigs per year
• 12.2 kWh per weaned pig

10. 46%
28%
13%
5%
1%
1%
4%
1%
1%
13%
BW6 2015 Average Monthly Electricity Use
(Average of 87,128 kWh/Month)
Heat Lamps
Misc.
Ventilation
Office/Maint
Well
Power Washer
Lights
Feed System
Heat

12.  Nursery barn #3
• Nursery rooms power
ventilated
 Electrical usage
• Uses 3,700 kWh/month on ave.
• 19,596 pigs per year
• 2.3 kWh per pig produced
 Nursery barn #7
• Nursery rooms power
ventilated
 Electrical usage
• Uses 13,100 kWh/month on ave.
• 76,700 pigs per year
• 2.05 kWh per pig produced
Nurseries

13. 40%
40%
9%
4%
2%
3%
2%
11%
N3 2015 Average Monthly Electricity Use
(Average of 3,696 kWh/Month)
Ventilation
Misc.
Office
Heat
Lights
Feed System
PW

14. 32%
37%
18%
6%
2%
2%
2%
1%
0%
13%
N7 2015 Average Monthly Electricity Use
(Average of 13,109 kWh/Month)
Ventilation
Misc.
Office
Controllers
(Heat)
Lights
Feed System

16.  Finish barn #5
• Pig rooms are curtain
sided
 Electrical usage
• Uses 770 kWh/month on ave.
• 3,000 pigs per year
• 3.1 kWh per finished pig
 Finish barn #4
• Pig rooms are tunnel
ventilated
 Electrical usage
• Uses 7,500 kWh/month on ave.
• 5,837 pigs per year
• 15.4 kWh per finished pig
Finishing Barns

17. 53%
25% 9%
9% 3%
1%
0%
0%
4%
F4 2015 Average Monthly Electricity Use
(Average of 7,504 kWh/Month)
Ventilation
Misc.
Well
Office
Feed
System
Lights

18. 71%
10%
13% 3%
2%
1%
6%
F5 2015 Average Monthly Electricity Use
(Average of 774 kWh/Month)
Ventilation
Misc.
Feed
System
Lights/Heat
PW

21. 1 University of Minnesota, West Central Research and Outreach Center, Morris
2 Brumm Swine Consultancy, Mankato, MN
3 The Ohio State University, Columbus
4 South Dakota State University, Brookings
5 University of Missouri, Columbia
L. J. Johnston1, M. C. Brumm2, S. Moeller3, S. Pohl4, M.
Shannon5, and R. Thaler4

22. Phase of
production
Heating fuel
($/pig)
Electricity
($/pig)
Total cost
($/pig)
Farrow-to-finish 1.37 2.30 195.91
Wean-to-finish 1.92 0.76 181.97
Feeder-to-finish 1.42 1.23 184.97
MnSCU Adult Farm Business Mgt. (2014)

23. Bench and Gonyou, 2007
3.3 oC

24.  Commercial implementation of RNT was
impractical in the 1990’s
 Design of nursery facilities has improved
 Heating costs can be significant (remember
$7 propane?)
 Heat production of pigs has increased
• 60 Btu/h at 15 lb bodyweight
• 137 Btu/h at 24 lb
• 240 Btu/h at 48 lb

25.  To determine if an aggressive RNT regimen:
• Influences pig performance
• Increases magnitude of fossil fuel savings

27.  Animals
• 4,298 weaned pigs weighing 13.7 lb
• Trial lasted 28 to 42 days
 Facilities
• Mirror-image nursery rooms used at each site
• 10 trials conducted at 4 stations
 OH (2 trials; 1,420 pigs)  MO (2 trials; 360 pigs)
 MN (4 trials; 2,368 pigs)  SD (2 trials; 150 pigs)
 Measurements
• Pig performance
• Weekly heat/electricity use by room

28.  Control
• 86 °F at pig height
• Lowered temperature 3.5 °F per week (5-6 wk)
 RNT
• Same as Control during days 1 to 4
• Beginning day 5, reduced temperature 15 °F
1900 to 0700 hours daily
• Reduced daytime temperature 3.5 °F per week

29. 68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21
Degrees°F
Time of day (h)
CON
RNT

30. DegreesF
Days

31. 0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
ADG, lb ADFI, lb G:F
CON
RNT

32. 0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
CON RNT
kWh/pig-day
Btu/pig-day
Heating Fuel use,
Electricity use,
PSE = 0.016
PSE = 0.016

33. Trait
Heating fuel
(Btu/pig-day)
Electrical use
(kWh/pig-day)
Station CON RNT CON RNT
OH 14,307 8,943 - -
MO 14,104 12,030 0.020 0.019
SD 7,935 5,714 0.043 0.036
MN 3,009 1,557 0.032 0.026

34. 0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
OH MO SD MN Overall
$3.28
$0.85 $0.87 $0.76
$1.73
$/pigleavingnursery
Electricity
Heating fuel
Propane @ $1.60/gal
$0.10/kWh

35.  Propane
• 2,958 Btu/pig/d saved x 35 d = 103,530 Btu
saved
• 103,530 Btu = 1.13 gallons saved
• 15.2 lb CO2 equivalents saved/pig
 Electricity
• 0.005 kWh/pig/d saved x 35 = 0.175 kWh saved
• 0.3 lb CO2 equivalents saved/pig
 Total: 15.5 lb CO2 equivalents saved/pig

36.  Reducing room temperature furnace set
point by 15 °F at night beginning the 5th day
after arrival:
• Did not influence pig performance or health
• Reduced heating fuel and electrical use by 29
and 19%, respectively
• Reduced GHG emissions by 15.5 lb CO2 -e

39.  Morris Example (finishing barn roof)
• Use PVwatts to predict performance (easy)
 Predicted annual production = 35,480 kWh
 Cost = $86,000 ($3.20/Watt) Over 25 years
• 9.7₵/kWh (no incentives)
• 6.8₵/kWh (fed tax credit)
• 1.6₵/kWh (FTC & MiM)
Might have maintenance costs
with inverters

40.  Used PVwatts to predict performance
 Ground mounted due to barn orientation

42. 0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
72 59 50
Feedintake(lb/d)
Waterintake(gal/d)
Temp of drinking water (F)
Water intake
Feed intake
Jeon et al. (2006)

43. 45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Watertemp,°F
Date
Johnston et al. unpublished

44.  Solar PV panels on roof of WCROC farrowing
barn
 Use air-source heat pumps or chillers to cool
water
 Circulate water under sow for cooling
 Supply cooled drinking water to sows

45. Nooyen Manufacturing, Netherlands

47.  A comprehensive look at a product or process to evaluate inputs
and outputs of interest for their impacts on the environment.
 Many different impacts can be examined:
• Resource depletion
• Eutrophication potential
• Global warming
• Water use
 Our work examines fossil fuel depletion and global warming
• MJ of fossil energy
• Equivalents of CO2

48.  What is our base level of carbon emissions
and fossil fuel use?
 How will the addition of more efficient
equipment/practices improve the systems?
 Which production methods have less
environmental impacts?

49. 0.77
0.65
0.14
0.22
Manure emissions
Corn production
Soybean production
All other emissions
Total carbon footprint:
1.78 lb CO2e/lb live mkt pig
Preliminary estimate as of Jan. 2017

50. Preliminary data- current as of Fall 2015

51. 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
UK Denmark
(organic)
US
(NPB)
Denmark Canada France Sweden WCROC
4.2
3.04 2.85 2.7
2.33 2.25
1.95 1.78
LbCO2e/lblivemktpig

52.  Consumers and market chains will likely
continue demanding:
• Reduced carbon footprint
• More environmental sustainability
 Producers have tools to reduce fossil fuel use
without compromising animal performance and
comfort
 Changes will likely be driven more by consumer
demands than economic benefit to producers

53.  Swine: Adrienne Hilbrands, Mark Smith, farm staff
 Renewable energy: Mike Reese, Eric Buchanan, Kirsten Sharpe,
Joel Tallaksen, Curt Reese, George Nelson, Rachael Acevedo, crops staff
 Funders:
• MN Pork Board
• Excel Energy
• UM Institute on the Environment
• UM Rapid Ag Response Fund
• MN Environment and Natural Resource Trust Fund
through the Legislative Citizen’s Commission on
MN Resources